Here is an interesting thought, if this did work to produce thrust that did not act against the earth, then the earth would be moved in the direction of the device due to attraction to the device (flying car) equal to the weight of the object (it is attracted to the whole mass of the earth, and the whole mass of the earth is attracted to it).
Since more of these flying vehicles would end up existing in the Northern hemisphere, especially the US the earth would be set off course. Not sure by how much but over time it would become significant, megatons of force applied to one side of the earth for long enough would end up being disastrous I am sure. On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > <Tuesday's sermon> > > > > Personally, I think it is a bogus premise to assume that Newton’s laws are > not being violated when this EM device is speculated to be “hovering” a few > feet above the surface of Earth. As Dave rightly points out if the > “hovering” device were to be situated outside the influence of Earth’s > gravity field the contraption would most certainly be caught in the act of > accelerating – which presumably then means it’s violating Newton’s laws. My > point is that if the EM device is presumably breaking Newton’s laws outside > of Earth’s gravity field I don’t believe we can conveniently insert an > exception to the rule and suddenly proclaim that within Earth’s gravity > field the same EM device isn’t breaking those same laws. That makes > absolutely no logical sense to me. It strikes me as a fudge factor. > > > > Nature, specifically our perception and quaint understanding of gravity > fields, appears to be playing a very subtle trick on us. It’s most likely > due our own ignorance hampering a better understanding of Newton’s laws > being played out here, specifically the phenomenon we call gravity. > > > > Regarding gravity, our human bi-pedal brains have a very difficult time > trying to grasp and understand the consequences of the simple but > paradoxical equation “1/r^2”. IMHO, it is generally not perceived (or for > that matter accepted) that as we stand on the surface of Earth that we are > in a constant state acceleration. The point being: If we are accelerating > why aren't we moving? However, according to Einstein: gravity and > acceleration are precisely the same phenomenon being played out in > different spatial fields. Our human perception is used to perceiving the > phenomenon of acceleration as OBSERVING an object move, or more technically > speaking the velocity of the object observed in a constant state of > changing. We observe changes in velocity (acceleration) in *flat* spatial > fields. But if you start bending (or subsequently concentrate) those > spatial fields, such as what “1/r^2” does when approaching a large mass > like Earth, it is possible to play tricks on our human perception. For > example we perceive (and subsequently believe) stationary objects are at > rest on the surface of earth, and that they have weight. It is ludicrous > for our bi-pedal brains to perceive such stationary objects possessed with > "weight" as accelerating, or moving. But according to Einstein such objects > are accelerating. Therefore they are also in a constant state changing > their velocity. That means they are moving! But we don't perceive them as > moving! It's the curvature of the spatial field that results in such > objects not appear to be moving (form our perception) which our bi-pedal > brains are having a horrible time with. > > > > We are caught in a nasty paradox for which we have been trying to resolve > with little success for centuries. For example, one of the most profound > paradoxes we try not to think too much about is that if it takes a constant > expenditure of energy (fuel) to keep a helicopter hovering 10 feet above > the surface of earth – well then, where’s the energy (fuel) coming from > that keeps gravity turned constantly “on” and us firmly planted on the > surface of Earth? > > > > Obviously, we are missing something important here. ;-) Personally, I > suspect one the subtle points we may have been glossing over is our > ignorance of the consequences of manipulating spatial fields. If we can > learn how to manipulate them out of the normal flat spatial planes that we > typically exist in, and do so without having to consume gigawatts of > energy, I think we would be in for a big surprise. I can't say what's has > been happing under wraps in black ops for decades, but as far as we are > concerned we don’t yet know how to bend or concentrate 3D SPACE on the > human scale in the same manner that large bodies of mass have been bending > spatial fields on the planetary scale since the beginning of time. But if > we could learn how to do it, it will likely reap many untold benefits. > Anti-gravity for example. Alas, this is a tough one. For millions of years > our bi-pedal brains have had a difficult time wrapping around the concept > of not falling out of the tree. Kan't be done, we tell ourselves. Our > instincts quite rightly tell us we will most surely drop like a rock if we > let go of the branch. ;-) > > > > But yeah, I think we can learn to let go of the branch. Eventually. > > > > </Tuesday's sermon> > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks >
